Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's End (TV series)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World's End (TV series)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find any evidence of notability, which it has been tagged for since 2018, with zero reviews found. Sending it here to see if anyone else can find something that would justify keeping this article, and if not, then it should be deleted. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~See below: Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of value to Wikipedians from the UK or fans of the show, and (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources ...

... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG. I have made reasonable WP:BEFORE searches yet none were found

Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what

WP:IAR is for! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

On second thought, you're right

WP:IAR Jack4576 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and
WP:RPRGM. Source in article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS. Keep vote admits that guidelines call for deletion, even after spam Keep vote. // Timothy :: talk 00:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: I have found no SIGCOV and see no evidence that this meets the GNG. (Also, IMHO, a call to keep an article based on IAR is a concession that there aren't any legitimate grounds upon which to keep.) Ravenswing 01:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except IAR which is its own legitimate ground. Jack4576 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some references which I put on the article’s talk page —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article requires SIGCOV to determine notability. These sources (the ones you added to the talk page) do not demonstrate SIGCOV. The 1st contains several interview quotes and is extremely
WP:ROUTINE; besides that, it hardly focuses on the series itself (instead listing multiple quotes) and is quite short. The 2nd source closely resembles this description, consisting almost entirely of quotes, besides the fact that it is very short and lacks in-depth description of the series. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree. Considered together, those two sources identified by A. B. amount to significant coverage existing for this subject. The Chronicle live article in particular discusses the subject with a reasonable amount of depth; describing the show's setting, film location, release date, plot, cast, and production. SIGCOV is arguably met here.

A subjective assessment, in any event. Jack4576 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIGCOV is only determined individually. Nythar (💬-🍀) 04:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, (you keep repeating this, yet have never provided any basis for that assertion)

and in any event, the ChronocleLive article alone would be enough. Jack4576 (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
copied from somewhere without attribution. Peter James (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per my reasoning above and Peter James' analysis. Nythar (💬-🍀) 15:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.